How much do you want to bet Feber gets added to ever growing list of legal batshit in Sil's sig line? lol
I look forward to Silhouette's alternate history fan fiction on Feber..
New York vs Ferber (google it and read it for yourself) was a case where a man wanted to sell or rent child porn videos and the state clamped down on him. He cried "my civil rights to free speech!".. and there was much deliberation over that back and forth. First he won, then he didn't, appeals and finally USSC Hearing. The Highest Court in our land affirmed that even when adults have a clear and concise constitutional civil right; if it is exercised to the physical or psychological harm to children, that right is not dominant to children's protection.
Lets see.......the Ferber case never mentions marriage, never finds that same sex marriage damages children, never found children are married to their parents, never found that the marriage of children is a 'minor contract' for their children, never even used the word 'marriage', in any context.
You hallucinated all of that. The Ferber case has nothing to do with same sex marriage. Which might explain why it was never cited by any court in relation to same sex marriage.
Single parenthood is better than gay marriage because gay marriage completely removes the hope of a mother or father to children involved...FOR LIFE... Single parents meanwhile may remarry. Removing hope from a child of an onerous situation never ending is psychological cruelty.
That is what happened. That is the Law as we currently sit. Gay marriage in Obergefell reversed NY v Ferber when the Court said "It's OK for adults to institutionally strip children of either a mother or father for life"...ignoring the mastadon in the living room which is that marriage was created over a thousand years ago precisely to remedy any child's life that found them lacking the need of both a mother and father....
So, even if gays were saintly, pure, chaste and wonderful (though we've seen the opposite going on in their parades across the nation), their contemporary wishes of wanting to be part of the marriage contract together cannot subvert children's need of marriage to remedy "being fatherless or motherless". So, gay marriage is illegal according to NY vs Ferber. If a child can be predicted to come to harm from an adult exercise of a "civil right" (newly created and added to the constitution for just some of their favorite deviant sex behaviors but not others, outside the Legislature's powers), that civil right can not be exercised in that particular instance.
Sorry. And if you disagree, look up NY v Ferber yourselves..but here's a snippet:
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756–57 (1982)
https://law.ku.edu/sites/law.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/law_review/v61/02-Preston_Final.pdf (page 30)
It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State’s interest in “
safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor” is “compelling.” . . . Accordingly,
we have sustained legislation aimed at protecting the physical and emotional well-being of youth even when the laws have operated in the sensitive area of constitutionally protected right...
Alas, the Supreme Court found that denying same sex marriage hurts children. And that recognizing same sex marriage helps children. A total of 4 times. Thus, per the standards you've cited in Ferber, the Supreme Court were correct in recognizing same sex marriage to prevent harm to children and to benefit children.
Remember, you disagree with the *findings* of the Supreme Court. Insisting that you know better. You don't.
And don't forget Fawcett v. Smethurst which says an onerous contract which hurts or tortures children in evident or subtle ways cannot be legal:
Incapacity Law | Contract and Capacity Law A contract is not binding on a minor merely because it is proved to be
for the minor's benefit; but
a contract which would otherwise be binding as a contract for necessaries is not so if it contains harsh and onerous terms: Fawcett v. Smethurst (1914) 84 LJKB 473, (Atkin J).
Three huge problems with your pseudo-legal nonsense. First, Fawcett v. Smethurst is about contracts in which children are subject to legal liabilities. IE, specific legal obligations as signatories to a contract. No child is subject to any legal obligation or liability when their parents are married.
So even hypothetically, your claims are meaningless gibberish.
Second, no court no law recognizes marriage of parents as a 'minor contract' for their children. No law nor court recognizes children being married to their parents.
You made all that shit up. And your imagination and personal fiction have no relevance to the law. Rendering your claims yet again, meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish.
Third, the Supreme Court specifically found that the right to marry is not predicated on children or the ability to have them.
Obergefell v. Hodges said:
"This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."
Killing your argument a third time. Your only recourse is to ignore the Supreme Court. And ignoring them, insist that every court and law in the nation is simiarly obligated to do so.
Alas, the world does not disappear just because you close your eyes. And the Supreme Court explicitly contradicting your claims and destroying your argument doesn't magically disappear just because you pretend it doesn't exist.
So where the LGBT cult cries "gay marriage remedies single parenthood!" ; we find that it does not. And in fact it erases any hope of a child having both a mother and father: THE reason marriage was created a thousand years ago.
"Onerous" defined: (dictionary dot com)
The terms were 'onerous
liability'. You intentionally omitted the liability part for a very specific reason:
Children are subject to no liability whatsoever when their parents get married. Making an 'onerous' one physically impossible.
Which you knew. But really hoped we didn't.
Children come in both genders needing specific role models of same to properly adjust to the adult world in which they find...both genders operating the joint...
Troublesome, causing hardship:
PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY
The Prince Trust Study never so much as mentions mothers and fathers. Nor does it measure the effects of any kind of parenting. Which, of course, you know. But really hope we don't.
The only person citing the study in reference to same sex marriage......is you. And you're nobody.
There's a reason why you're *always* wrong in predicting legal outcomes, Sil. Its because you keep citing your imagination rather than the law.
That case is discussing contracts in which minors are signatories. It says that contracts which would be binding on minors, in other words contracts of which minors are signatories and have rights/responsibilities within the contract, are voided if the terms are onerous. It is a way for minors to be relieved of obligation to follow a contract, not a way to void contracts which are not directly related to minors.
